2003年医学博士外语真题试卷

There were red faces at one of Britain’ s biggest banks recently. They had accepted a telephone order to buy $ 100,000 worth of shares from a fifteen-year-old schoolboy(they thought he was twenty-one). The shares fell in value and the schoolboy was unable to【C1】___The band lost $ 20,000 on the【C2】that it cannot get back because, for one thing, this young speculator does not have the money and, for another,【C3】___under eighteen, he is not legally liable for his debts. If the shares had risen in value by the same amount that they fell, he would have pocketed $ 20,000

【C4】___Not bad for a fifteen-year-old. It certainly is better than【C5】the morning newspaper. In another recent case, a boy of fourteen found, in his grandfather’ s house, a suitcase full of foreign banknotes. The clean, crisp banknotes looked very【C6】but they were now not used in their country of origin or anywhere else. This young boy【C7】straight to the nearest bank with his pockets filled with notes. The cashiers did not realize that the country in【C8】___had reduced the value of its currency by 90%. They exchanged the notes at their face value at the current exchange rate. In three days, before he was found out, he took $200,000 from nine different banks.

【C9】___, he had already spent more than half of this on taxi-rides, restaurant meals, concert tickets and presents for his many new girlfriends(at least he was generous!)before the police caught up with him. Because he is also under eighteen the banks have【C10】___a lot of money, and several cashiers have lost their jobs.

In a society where all aspects of our lives are dictated by scientific advances in technology, science is the essence of our existence. Without the vast advances made by chemists, physicists, biologists , geologists and other diligent scientists, our standards of living would decline, our flourishing wealthy nation might come to an economic depression, and our people would suffer from diseases that could not be cured. As a society we ignorantly take advantage of the amenities provided by science , yet our lives would be altered interminably without them.

Health care, one of the aspects of our society that separates us from our archaic ancestors, is founded exclusively on scientific discoveries and advances. Without the vaccines created by doctors , diseases such as polio, measles, hepatitis, and the flu would pose a threat to our citizens, for although some of these diseases may not be deadly, their side effects can be a vast detriment to an individual affected with the disease.

In addition, science has developed perhaps the most awe-inspiring vital invention in the history of the world, the computer. Without the presence of this machine our world could exist, but the conveniences brought into life by the computer are unparalleled.

Despite the greatness of present-day innovators and scientism and their revelations, it is requisite to examine the amenities of science that our culture so blatantly disregards. For instance, the light bulb, electricity, the telephone, running water, and the automobile are present-day staples of our society, however, they were not present until scientists discovered them.

Because of the contribution of scientists, our world is ever metamorphosing, and this metamorphosis economically and personally comprises our society, whether our society is cognizant of this or not.

Biotechnology is expected to bring important advances in medical diagnosis and therapy, in solving food problems, in energy saving, in environmentally compatible industrial and agricultural production, and in specially targeted environmental protection projects. Genetically altered microorganisms can break down a wide range of pollutants by being used, for example, in bio-filters and wastewater-treatment facilities, and in the clean-up of polluted sites. Genetically modified organisms can also alleviate environmental burdens by reducing the need for pesticides, fertilizers, and medications.

Sustainability, as a strategic aim, involves optimizing the interactions between nature, society, and the economy, in accordance with ecological criteria. Political leaders and scientists alike face the challenge of recognizing interrelationships and interactions between ecological, economic and social factors and taking account of these factors when seeking solution strategies. To meet this challenge , decision-makers require interdisciplinary approaches and strategies that cut across political lines. Environmental discussions must become more objective, and this includes, especially, debates about the risks of new technologies, which are often ideologically charged. In light of the complex issues involved in sustainable development, we need clearer standards for orienting and assessing our environmental policies.

Sustainable development can succeed only if all areas of the political sector, of society, and of science accept the concept and work together to implement it. A common basic understanding of environmental ethics is needed to ensure that protection of the natural foundation of life becomes a major consideration in all political and individual action. A dialogue among representatives of all sectors of society is needed if appropriate environmental policies are to be devised and implemented.

People from around the world flock to the United States expecting to find a better life. But to scientists’ surprise, a growing body of evidence indicates that increasing familiarity with U. S. culture and society renders immigrants and their children far more susceptible to many mental and physical ailments, even if they attain financial success.

The latest study of this phenomenon, directed by epidemiologist William A. Vega of the University of Texas, San Antonio, finds much higher rates of major depression, substance abuse, and other mental disorders in U. S. -born Mexican-Americans compared with both recent and long-standing Mexican-American immigrants. This pattern held regardless of education or income levels.

Vega’ s results appear at the same time as the release of a national report on declining physical and mental health in children of immigrant families. A panel convened by the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine, both in Washington, D. C. ,reviewed previous studies and concluded that assimilation into a U. S. lifestyle may undermine the overall health of immigrant children much more than being poor does.

In contrast, studies of nonimmigrant U. S. residents usually link poverty to poor physical and mental health.

” The material on immigrant health shocked me when we first reviewed it,” says panel member Arthus M Kleinman, a psychiatrist and anthropologist at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “ Vega ’ s study is consistent with the panel’ s conclusion that immigrants’ health deteriorates with assimilation to U.S. society, declining toward general U. S. norms. ” says Kleinman. Other studies have indicated that citizens of many countries, including Mexico, are healthier overall than U. S. citizens.

Vega’s team interviewed 3,012 adults of Mexican origin, ages 18-59, living Fresno County, Calif. Of that number, 1,810 people identified themselves as immigrants. Interviews were in English or Spanish. Interviewers expressed an interest in health issues only and tried to minimize any tendency of participants to lie—due to U. S. residency concerns—about having immigrated.

Nearly one-half of U. S. -born Mexican-Americans had suffered from at least one of 12 psychiatric disorders at some time in their lives, compared with only one-quarter of the immigrants. Common mental conditions in U. S. -born individuals included major depression, phobias and other anxiety disorders, and substance abuse and dependence.

Prevalence rates for mental disorders were lowest for those who had immigrated within the past 13 years. The higher rates found among immigrants of 13 or more years still fell considerably below those for the native-born group.

Rain is not what it used to be. A new study reveals that much of the precipitation in Europe contains such high levels of dissolved pesticides that it could be illegal to supply it as drinking water.

Studies in Switzerland have found that rain is laced with toxic levels of atrazine, alachlor and other commonly used crop sprays. “Drinking water standards are regularly exceeded in rain,” says Stephan Muller, a chemist at the Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science and Technology in Dubendorf. The chemicals appear to have evaporated from fields and become part of the clouds.

Both the European Union and Switzerland have set a limit of 100 nanograms for any particular pesticide in a liter of drinking water. But, especially in the first minutes of a heavy storm, rain can contain much more than that.

In a study to be published by Muller and his colleague Thomas Bucheli in Analytical Chemistry this summer, one sample of rainwater contained almost 4000 nanograms per liter of 2,4-dinitrophe-nol, a widely used pesticide. Previously, the authors had shown that in rain samples taken from 41 storms, nine contained more than 100 nanograms of atrazine per liter, one of them around 900 nanograms.

In the latest study, the highest concentrations of pesticides turned up in the first rain after a long dry spell, particularly when local fields had recently been sprayed. Until now, scientists had assumed that the pesticides only infiltrated groundwater directly from fields.

Muller warns that the growing practice of using rainwater that falls onto roofs to recharge underground water may be adding to the danger. This water often contains dissolved herbicides that had been added to roofing materials, such as bitumen sheets, to prevent vegetation growing. He suggests that the first flush of rain should be diverted into sewers to minimize the pollution of drinking water, which is not usually treated to remove these herbicides and pesticides.

Folk wisdom holds that the blind can hear better than people with sight. Scientists have a new reason to believe it.

Research now indicates that blind and sighted people display the same skill at locating a sound’ s origin when using both ears, but some blind people can home in on sounds more accurately than their sighted counterparts when all have one ear blocked. Canadian scientists described the work in the Sept. 17 NATURE.

Participants in the study were tested individually in a sound-insulated room. They faced 16 small, concealed loudspeakers arrayed in a semicircle a few feet away. With a headrest keeping their heads steady, the participants pointed to the perceived origins of the sounds.

The researchers tested eight blind people, who had been completely sightless from birth or since a very early age. They also tested three nearly blind persons, who had some residual vision at the periphery of their gaze; seven sighted people wearing blindfolds; and 29 sighted people without blindfolds. All participants were tested beforehand to ensure that their hearing was normal.

When restricted to one-ear, or monaural, listening, four of the eight blind people identified sound sources more accurately than did the sighted people, says study co-author Michel Pare, a neuroscientist at the University of Montreal. The sighted people showed especially poor localization of sounds from the speakers on the side of blocked ear.

In sighted people who can hear with both ears, “ the brain learns to rely on binaural [ stereo ] cues. These data suggest that blind people haven’ t learned that and keep monaural cues as the dominant cues,” says Enc I. Knudsen, a neurobiologist at Stanford University School of Medicine, “I find it surprising. “

“I got cancer in my prostrate. ” Detective Andy Sipowicz of the fictional 15’ Precinct, a stoic, big bear of a man, is clearly in a world of pain in a 1998 episode of NYPD Blue. The story line deals not only with cancer but also with medical screw-ups, hospital indignities and physician arrogance. Themalapropism(Andy, of course, meant “prostate”)is about the only medical detail the show got wrong—and it was deliberate, in keeping with Sipowicz’ s coarse but tenderhearted character.

Television, which can still depict death as an event akin to fainting, is beginning to try harder to get its health information right. And a handful of foundations and consultants are working to get the attention of writers’ producers and assorted Hollywood moguls, trying to convince them that, in the area of medicine, the truth is as compelling as fiction.

The stakes are high. Surveys show a surprising number of Americans get much of their basic health information not from their doctors, not even from newspapers or news magazines, but from entertainment television. A survey by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that among people who watch soap operas at least twice a week—more than 38 million people—a-bout half learned something about disease and its prevention from the daytime serials. Some 7 percent actually visited a doctor because of something they viewed.

Certain television shows are naturals for health education. The Clinton administration has been quick to recognize the potency of the entertainment media as a health promoter. Secretary Donna Shalala, whose Department of Health and Human Services educates the public through traditional brochures and public service announcements, has offered TV writers the sources of her department to help them ensure accuracy. “Entertainment television reaches the hearts and minds of millions of Americans,” she told U. S. News, “In recent years, I have challenged television talk-show hosts, writers, and producers—as professionals, parents, and citizens—to use this incredible power to help Americans get accurate public health information”.